Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission Rabies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mission Rabies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Written like an advert, no encyclopaedic content. The only source that isn't its own website is like an advert as well. Dark Sun (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. A notable project to fight a major wildlife disease in a major country; not sure about the notability of the organizations behind it but that is not at issue here. Here is just some of the significant independent coverage this has received: National Geographic, New Indian Express, Animal People News, BBC News, The Journal of the British Veterinary Association, ... I'll stop now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be expanded, but that's not a reason for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, after all. In addition to the sources found, a simple Google search also turns up articles from The Times of India. Novusuna talk 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH per, , , ,  . Northamerica1000(talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep The National Geographic link alone should put this beyond reasonable doubt as a keep. The Times of India and the New Indian Express put it beyond all reasonable doubt.  And I only didn't list the BBC because I've not watched the link.  Yes, the article needs a cleanup - but it doesn't belong on the deletion request page. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.